Is this a workaround for "no content" designs?

[DMC_34]

I noticed this sites drastic rise in the SERP's. I am sure there are many other factors but notice the content. Its in embedded in "noscript" tags. Not saying it isnt legit but curious as to the thoughts of others. Seems legit to me but I would doubt Harry and David would really want customers to see that ugly unformatted text :)

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...GLD:en&strip=1

[Faglork]

I think they just got some wrong ideas about frames. All that stuff in the <noscript> area belongs into the <noframes> part, and then it would be okay. From a structural point of view, the page is so bad, it is either deliberate spam or plain incompetence.

Alex

[DMC_34]

Originally Posted by faglork

I think they just got some wrong ideas about frames. All that stuff in the <noscript> area belongs into the <noframes> part, and then it would be okay. From a structural point of view, the page is so bad, it is either deliberate spam or plain incompetence.

Alex

Hi Alex,

It seems to me it is SEO, trying to get more content without a site redesign and hence the no script tags. They have a vast marketing campaign with a good amount of IBL's so it only helps to add some content. I could be wrong but doesnt this have the same effect on a bot that cloaking would? Bot sees content that "Most" visitors will never see.

[Faglork]

Originally Posted by DMC_34

It seems to me it is SEO, trying to get more content without a site redesign and hence the no script tags.

The noscript tags are not for "content". They are for informationm if the client cannot run a script (JS switched off etc.) and needs to be informed what should be going on in this place. This is no place for stuffing content in. The legitimate place, in this case, is the <noframes> area. Why one would use a spammy technique when there is a legit one ready to be used, is beyond me.

Originally Posted by DMC_34

(...)so it only helps to add some content(...)

Using tags in this way is not "adding content", but spamming. In the long run, this will not help. Any competitor will quickly inform Google (and others) about this ...

Originally Posted by DMC_34

(...)doesnt this have the same effect on a bot that cloaking would?

"cloaking" is an entirely different thing. Cloaking means to use server side techniques to feed entirely different content to the bots than to the normal user. There may be legitimate uses for cloaking (though right now none comes to my mind, anyone else?), but AFAIK most SEs seem to at least "frown upon" it.

Whether the effects are comparable, I cannot say. All I can say is that most spamming techniques get penalized, sooner or later.

Alex

[DMC_34]

I agree with you. When I said SEO I meant "Shady" SEO :) As for cloaking, I understand server side cloaking can be accomplished with using javascript on the client side event suchas onclick or onmouseover + "location='http://www....'" Since most bots dont read this it is ignored but visitors with javascript get the redirect page. The same is said in this instance bots see the content but most visitors will not. Hence same effect